These instructions should be on the news and in the papers--in various languages. Could save a few lives-- police and civilians alike-- and prevent unneccessary searches of innocent people.

If my parents could have taught your instructions to my dev. delayed older brother, it would have saved a lot of heartache and legal fees. We could have role-played it with him every day, so he would have something to say and do when the inevitable happened and he was stopped by the police.

He is in his mid-fifties now and has a mental age of 12-14. When confronted by police or security guards, he panics, stutters, lies, and tries to run away. Because in his mind he is 12-14. He has never been employable, and it is just as well that he had no real career aspirations, since he has a police record and has been locked up more than once. Ironically, his behavior has not changed much over the years, but he has far fewer run-ins with the police nowadays.

He is just as "dangerous" now as he was 30 years ago. Meaning he is still black, male, shabby-looking, with erratic and unpredictable behavior, a stutter and a tendency to make things up on the spot, and a fear of authority figures. He still lacks a driver's license or other government ID, can't drive, can't operate a computer, and has a hard time remembering his phone number and address.

In his teens and 20's it was a major stressfest when he was late coming home, or had disappeared from the house at odd hours. My mother would drive the streets all night, trying to find him. She was terrified that if gang members didn't kill him the police would. Not anymore, because, age-wise, he no longer fits the "profile" of a rival thug or suspicious criminal. So, he can wander the streets fairly safely these days-- at least unless someone challenges him and decides to "stand their ground".

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

These instructions should be on the news and in the papers--in various languages. Could save a few lives-- police and civilians alike-- and prevent unneccessary searches of innocent people.

You have no idea how good it makes me feel to hear you find this helpful. I work with adult immigrants and refugees and displaced people, and we do lots of “Know Your Rights” workshops every year. Know your rights as tenants. Know your rights in the workplace. Know your rights with the police.

But sometimes I think that there is such a disconnect between the laws and the realities that the information we provide is not even relevant. The person who earns $50 a day working for 11 hours may find minimum wage laws and overtime laws very interesting, but is not going to jeopardize her job by pointing them out to her employer. The tenant whose landlord refuses to pay for an exterminator is not going to just get up and move. Or take time off work to take the landlord to court. The young man who says, in broken English, “I no consent the search,” gets searched anyway. But we keep doing them.

And the landlords and employers and police who break the law are not as likely to be identified as a “criminal,” as the day laborer who is sitting on a stoop drinking a miller light out of a bottle in a paper bag.

There are all kinds of criminals. Kids with a joint in their jeans pocket. Mortgage bankers who engage in predatory practices. Construction site supervisors who don’t provide proper safety gear to workers. Enron VP’s. Landlords who don’t put out the funds to replace a broken hot water heater. Financial advisors who don’t disclose their fees for moving investments from one munie to another.

But the vast majority of criminals don’t get thrown against a brick wall or the side of a car and humiliated.

And the vast majority of people who get thrown against a brick wall or the side of a car and humiliated are not criminals.

The police are supposed to read a person their Miranda Rights as well. If memory serves, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law; you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one you will be appointed one by the court."

Anything I'm forgetting?

None is right. There is a grey area during which a person is being "detained" but not arrested. While a person is being detained, s/he has the same rights as a person who has been arrested, but the person is not told his/her rights until an arrest has been made. Actually, a person who is being detained has more rights than a person under arrest. A person who is being detained may be subjected to a "pat down" by police, but is not required to empty his/her pockets. During the pat down, police may seize weapons, or anything they suspect has been or will be used to commit a crime.

Again, this "pat down" can only be conducted if the police believe that a crime has been or will be committed, or if the police are searching for weapons. In NYC, more than 50% of pat downs occur because the police claim to have witnessed the subject engaging in "furtive movement." Go ahead and google it. The second most common reason for stop and search is "fit the description" of someone suspected of committing a crime.

My brother described above was Mr. Furtive Movement. When we were little we called him "Flinchy" when we wanted to be mean. He looked "suspicious" just standing still in front of our mother's house waiting for a ride. If he noticed anyone looking at him, he would get even more nervous and shifty-eyed, start to whisper to himself, fiddle with his pockets, keys, cap, whatever. Imagine how often he was brought to the attention of security guards and police in malls, stores, parks. Which made him even more nervous about going out and about. It was a vicious cycle.

I think I wrote here once about how he once ran out of a store with some batteries in his hand, after waiting patiently in line, his money out, to pay. Because he saw his bus coming across the street and knew that he would get yelled at if he got home late again. By trying to do what he thought was the right thing, he ended up in the hands of the police.... again.

Another time I was chatting with a friend who worked in a photography store, and a scruffy-looking suspicious character walked in. He walked slowly and aimlessly through the store, hands in his coat pockets, looking at things a little too closely, nervously glancing around like Shaggy in Scooby Doo. My friend looked alarmed, whispered, "Oh my god," and reached under the counter to push the security signal. I quickly put my hand on his arm and said, "It's okay. He's not going to take anything. I know him."

It was my brother. My friend was gobsmacked because 1) he was sure he was about to get robbed at gunpoint, and 2) he was shocked to learn that I had a "retarded" brother. It was not the sort of thing you told your friends if you were trying to be a hip and cool 20-something.

That time, he did not get detained, arrested or roughed up. It was just a fluke that I was there.

When threads like this come up, many folks, esp white folks go into denial. Some deny the reality of racial profiling; "Oh, c'mon, black men don't get pulled over for no reason more often than any other group. If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry."

Or they decide that we are exaggerating or lying about our experiences; "You folks are always crying racism-- you are really the bigots, the way you always suspect white people of racism. Black police pull over white people and we aren't complaining. The police are just doing their jobs."

Or what is worse, they try to justify mistreatment by police. "Well, young brown-skinned men commit more crimes, so of course the police will target them. What do you expect the police to do? Pull over law-abiding white people?"

If you were the mother of a dev. disabled black kid like my brother, what would you do to keep him out of police custody? Lock him in the house 24-7? Pay someone white to escort him everywhere he goes?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Let me add one last thing about my brother-- he did not understand race. He did not get that there were certain neighborhoods and stores where he would stand out and look even more suspicious. He liked to go to comic and gaming stores to hang out with his weird geeky buddies.[1] Those stores were in white neighborhoods. He thought that he had the right to get on the bus and go anywhere he wanted and visit who he wanted. Silly boy. He did not see himself as a threat to anyone-- because he wasn't. So he never understood why he was always in trouble when his equally goofy, dysfunctional geeky white friends were not.

I am sure that his unstable mental condition was worsened by the way he was so often treated as a "dangerous criminal". Being watched and suspected and searched all the time would wear down the most stable, intelligent, competent person. Ask the dissident intellectuals who survived totalitarian states like the Soviet Union.

A store owner became friends of our family. He once wrote a letter to the court as a character witness, and it resulted in my brother being let go with a warning. (I am not sure what the warning was--stop being a weird black kid?) Maybe black people should carry a letter from a nice white person with them at all times?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

Opinion again, but i had the same thought about the "intimidation and accidental discharge of the weapon" scenario as a previous poster.

for the record, i'm a white male aged between 35 and 45. And no, i'm not wracked by liberal white guilt. I am deeply saddened and highly frustrated by whites who refuse to acknowledge that we're a racist country collectively speaking.

First of all, I want to clarify that I did not write the “know your rights with the police” piece. We have people come in and do workshops. I get info. I pass it along. And I did not properly cite it as being created by someone else. And I’m not even sure who.

Secondly, and more importantly, I’ve seen gobs of videos of kids and young men and (some young women) being interviewed about stop and search.

I selected the link to that video because I thought it would be the most persuasive. The young man is so articulate and attractive (with just a little bit of teenage awkwardness that you know is going to go away in a couple of years) and so charismatic, that anyone would be thrilled to have him as a son or a nephew or a student or a neighbor. And then we find out the same thing is happening to his equally likeable high school teacher, and how can you help but throw your hands in the air in dismay?

I did not share those videos because I thought they did not “make the case” for the injustice of stop and search as effectively.

And then I think about your brother. And I think that perhaps I am doing him (and people like him) a disservice by selecting testimony from this articulate young future lawyer. Because even the inarticulate and the angry and the weird looking people, and the people who have inappropriate body language, they all deserve the same respect from the police as you or me or a VP from Exxon.

Appealing people are more sympathetic. But not more worthy of respect.

Way back in the day, on the Phil Donahue Show, there was a black guy, eccentric-looking, with dreadlocks, who liked to walk long distances across the city where he lived. You know where this is going. In certain neighborhoods, people called the police and he was stopped, frisked and harrassed.

Although he never committed any crime, not even jay-walking, or had anything illegal on him, the police actually told him to stay out of white neighborhoods. He was creating a nuisance and disturbing people, I guess by being black and male. He refused, asserting that as a law-abiding citizen he had the right to walk on any city street he wanted. He kept getting picked up and released, since there was no crime that he could be charged with. He turned out to have more stubborness than brains, because he kept right on walking.

Well, Phil Donahue's studio audience of white suburban women was appalled. But not by the unconstitutional treatment of this innocent guy. They were horrified and frightened by the idea that a shaggy-haired black weirdo had the affrontery to walk through neighborhoods where, as one woman put it, "He had no business being" since he was not working there, living there or even visiting anyone. Whenever a lady stood up to express the fear that he might someday decide to rob or rape somone, the studio audience went wild with affirmative applause. When the guy or his attorney (IIRC) talked about how everyone has the right to walk on any public street, as long as they have not done anything illegal, they were booed.

This was in the 1970's or early 80's and I still remember the show, because the situation was so much like my brother's. They showed a film of the guy ambling along, arms swinging, turning corners and walking down different streets. He was probably slightly mentally ill, and maybe walking helped to calm him down. Who knows? But he and his lawyer maintained that he "just liked to walk" and did not see why the police were always hassling him. Phil Donahue looked perplexed by the whole mess, maybe because he could not imagine people calling the police just because he walked down the street. Or maybe he could not imagine being afraid of being robbed or raped by a strange man.

At any rate, this was before the rise of the gated communities, where security guardposts keep the riffraff from entering unless they are there to clean up or do some landscaping.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

By the way - the police are only allowed to detain and search a person if that person is suspected of having committed a crime, or suspected of being about to commit a crime. Unless the police decide to look for a weapon. So why were the police searching Chavis Carter? No media has reported that he was suspected of having committed a crime before he was detained. So they were looking for a weapon? Really, really incompetently looking for a weapon?

He was wanted on an outstanding warrant from another state. That validates the arrest, and the search.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.

In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.

WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.

Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

In my opinion, to deny that there is institutionalized, deeply ingrained racism against people of color in America is pure lunacy. Given the overwhelming evidence in support of its existence, the only reason to argue against it is if one has a deep, if unadmitted, belief that the race in question is in fact inferior and worthy of special reproach.

The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.

WOW just WOW.....you do know from slave ownership days up until the sixties WHITE lynch mobs hanged African guys just for shits and giggles....no trail,no judge.

Ignorant statement....giving that it took weeks to charge Zimmerman ....WHY?

Slavery continues to exist today, in the form of human trafficking. But that is a sensitive topic for Joe. Best not to talk about it. It makes Joe really mad when people point out the humanity of people who he prefers to disregard.

You’re right Joe. Possession of marijuana is a dangerous crime, and so many lives are destroyed when someone has a joint in his pocket.

The world would be a better place if everyone who has ever been in possession of marijuana would just commit suicide.

It’s not as if it were a victimless crime. Like, say kiddie porn.

But seriously.

Nogodsforme’s posts about her brother really made me examine my own reluctance to consider a developmentally delayed or mentally ill person as a representative of a larger community. Last night I felt like I might be at a turning point.

But then I look at your posts, and consider the possibility of you being a representative of the atheist community, and I am afraid that I have retreated to my previous reluctance.

There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.

There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.

Pony, if you are suggesting that Joe was alluding to the impact that poverty or marginalization or oppression have on communities, and that these factors have an impact on crime rates, I'm guessing you are mistaken. I don't think that is what Joe was saying at all.

And I don't see this as a sad story, when dangerous criminals die I see it as natural selection at it's finest. I'm against the death penalty but if they want to kill themselves, I'll even pay for the bullet.

I know it won't happen, I am simply saying I wish it would. If I had the power, and all the blame would rest with me personally, I would destroy the middle east. And China and India for that matter, and most of Asia, Africa, South America, Mexico, big parts of the US, and most of Europe. Mostly to rid the world of religion, or cultures that I consider to be broken and unfixable. Good thing I'm not God, right?

By the way, I live in China, and I hate these people, haha. This is where most people ask me why I stay. Yellow fever baby, yellow fever. White chicks don't do it for me like a fine Asian lass.

I do not think he was making an astute social observation. Nor do I not think he is your garden variety racist. He is much more than that.

There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.

And that is why I live "off the reservation"

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

High arrest and imprisonment rates of a population do not mean that the population is some lessor variety of humanity, just naturally inclined to be dangerous. Or else we have to agree that the countries with the highest percentages of people arrested, imprisoned, and executed have reasonable laws, perfectly fair justice systems, where everyone has the same opportunities, but just have a whole lot of really bad people.

Funny how countries like Iran, Afghanistan, China, Former Soviet Union and apartheid era South Africa fit the category of very high arrest, imprisonment and execution rates. And of course are characterized by reasonable laws, fair justice systems and equal opportunities for all. Just a lot of really bad people, I guess.

Or maybe a lot of injustice, a lot of non-violent social behavior[1] considered criminal, and a lot of surveillance of the population. Like, maybe a lot of social problems are ignored or made worse by the government? And police are used more to control and oppress the population and less to prevent crime or to catch dangerous people?

And people in Japan, Sweden and France have the same exact kind of laws and justice systems, but are just a lot of happy campers, naturally able to resist the criminal impulse to read banned materials, practice the wrong religions, have sex or leave the house.

The fact that blacks are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races suggests to me that blacks simply commit more crimes. It isn't evidence of racism unless you can demonstrate that black people are not committing crimes at a higher rate.

When's the last time you ever saw someone prove a negative, Joe? For that matter, when's the first time?

Things like the 14th Amendment[1] and the 24th Amendment[2] aren't passed in a vacuum, Joe. The 24th Amendment wasn't even ratified 50 years ago. Do you honestly believe that something as ubiquitous as racism could have been eradicated between then and now? There are millions of people alive today who lived through the Jim Crow era, either as victims of it or as the ones who enacted it. The repercussions of that period are still reverberating today.

EDIT: For that matter, the Rodney King beating, where four police officers severely beat a black man named Rodney King in the course of apprehending him, happened in 1991. Barely 20 years ago. He was tazed, struck dozens of times with police batons, and kicked several times as well, Joe. And this didn't happen in any of the states where Jim Crow had been legal; it happened in California. Most incidents of this nature are simply not noticed; the only reason this one caught the attention of the nation is that a nearby resident, a white man named George Holliday, was awakened by the police sirens and managed to videotape the incident. Yet he had to release the videotape to the news media for it to get any attention; the LAPD ignored him when he contacted them about it.

Are you still going to try to tell us that racism and its repercussions aren't a problem in the United States? Are you still going to try to tell us that that the reason black people are arrested and imprisoned at a higher rate than other races is because they commit more crimes than other races?

You’re right Joe. Possession of marijuana is a dangerous crime, and so many lives are destroyed when someone has a joint in his pocket.

The world would be a better place if everyone who has ever been in possession of marijuana would just commit suicide.

It’s not as if it were a victimless crime. Like, say kiddie porn.

But seriously.

Nogodsforme’s posts about her brother really made me examine my own reluctance to consider a developmentally delayed or mentally ill person as a representative of a larger community. Last night I felt like I might be at a turning point.

But then I look at your posts, and consider the possibility of you being a representative of the atheist community, and I am afraid that I have retreated to my previous reluctance.

We'll just completely ignore the gun then? That would be inconvenient to your argument that he was an innocent cherub wouldn't it? I get it. No problem. I'll play along.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

EDIT: For that matter, the Rodney King beating, where four police officers severely beat a black man named Rodney King in the course of apprehending him, happened in 1991. Barely 20 years ago. He was tazed, struck dozens of times with police batons, and kicked several times as well, Joe. And this didn't happen in any of the states where Jim Crow had been legal; it happened in California. Most incidents of this nature are simply not noticed; the only reason this one caught the attention of the nation is that a nearby resident, a white man named George Holliday, was awakened by the police sirens and managed to videotape the incident. Yet he had to release the videotape to the news media for it to get any attention; the LAPD ignored him when he contacted them about it.

Yes, Rodney King is a great example to prove your point. A black man, and a twice-convicted felon (framed by the police, surely, both times, even though he pleaded no contest to beating his wife) leads police on a high-speed chase through a residential area (framed) with a blood-alcohol level of .19 (framed). He then refuses a police order to exit his vehicle and resists arrest (framed).

And then, if I remember correctly, because the victim was a black man and America is so racist, nobody cared that King was beaten during his arrest, right? Wait, no, actually the arresting officers stood trial for use of exessive force, and were found not guilty by a jury.

Then, I guess it was all over. Or did something happen after that?

Oh, right the LA Riots. Black people reacted so badly to the jury's decision that they peacefully protested rioted, killing 53 people and injuring thousands more. A truly apt reminder of black people being unjustly labeled as criminals.

Make clear to everyone that you do not think that there is a genetic / biological origin to the crime statistics associated with black people in america. That is to say, their biological reality, being black, has no causal relationship with a disposition toward criminal activity.

I think you hold that opinion. But, I also think you're being more than coy about it and it is too close to trolling for me not to ask you to clarify.

Please explain how any of that demonstrates that black people do not commit more crime than other races.

Please explain to me how you are not requiring me and others in this thread to prove a negative. Given that you apparently think that black people commit more crimes than other races, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

Quesi posted statistics and figures earlier in this topic. You seem to have missed them.

Quote from: joebbowers

Yes, Rodney King is a great example to prove your point. A black man, and a twice-convicted felon (framed by the police, surely, both times, even though he pleaded no contest to beating his wife) leads police on a high-speed chase through a residential area (framed) with a blood-alcohol level of .19 (framed). He then refuses a police order to exit his vehicle and resists arrest (framed).

Unless you are seriously suggesting that this justifies him being severely beaten by police officers in the process of arresting him when he did not attack even one of them, this is irrelevant. The closest he came to physical resistance was pushing himself up off of the ground.

Also, your 'sarcasm' is way out of line. I never said anything about him being framed for any of that, and I really don't appreciate your insinuations to the contrary. If that's not what you were trying to get across, then you should clarify it.

Quote from: joebbowers

And then, if I remember correctly, because the victim was a black man and America is so racist, nobody cared that King was beaten during his arrest, right? Wait, no, actually the arresting officers stood trial for use of exessive force, and were found not guilty by a jury.

The officers were then tried in federal court for violation of King's civil rights, and two of them were found guilty. You also apparently ignored the probability that there would have been no trial and no real knowledge of it had it not been for the fact that the beating was videotaped by someone who was in the position to do so.

Quote from: joebbowers

Then, I guess it was all over. Or did something happen after that?

Oh, right the LA Riots. Black people reacted so badly to the jury's decision that they peacefully protested rioted, killing 53 people and injuring thousands more. A truly apt reminder of black people being unjustly labeled as criminals.

Yes, black people reacted badly to the acquittals, because that there was videotape evidence of Rodney King being severely beaten. He was struck 56 times with batons, Joe. Fifty-six. After being tased by one of the officers. He had broken bones as a result of that beating. And then the LA court system acquitted the officers of the charge of using excessive force. I'm not justifying the riots because of that, but I can understand how people, who had severely suffered from institutional racism for more than two centuries, could draw the conclusion that the deck was stacked against them and react with fury.

White people have rioted before, and for far less justification. For example, the [wiki]Tulsa race riot[/wiki] of 1921 resulted in the wealthiest African-American community in the United States being burned to the ground. 800 people were admitted to hospitals as a result of it, over 6,000 residents of that community were arrested (as near as I can tell, no whites were arrested even though much, if not most, of the rioting was the responsibility of white people; no white person except the chief of police was charged with any crime, and said chief was simply dismissed from his job), 10,000 black people were left homeless, and 35 city blocks (1,256 residences) were burned to the ground. That's just the bare bones; the details are much worse.

I don't believe you can legitimately draw the conclusion that black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes just from arrest data. A person can be arrested but never charged with a crime; they can be acquitted of the charges if they are, or vindicated of them if they are wrongfully convicted.

Quote from: joebbowers

Still? I never made that claim, so I couldn't be still making it. Of course racism is a problem.

No. It is your conclusion from the arrest data. The fact that other people disagree with you contradicts your assertion that it's a clear conclusion from the arrest data. And, as I stated just above, arrest data by itself doesn't confirm that a person is a criminal.

There is some truth to what Joe is saying, I wish he would have explained his point better, rather than leave it like that knowing the issue gets people emotionally charged up.

Being a historically oppressed minority group can lead to societal ills within the present day community populated by that group. 12 Monkeys can tell you about the impoverished state of many of Canada's First Nations reserves (if he can't, he should move to northern Ontario and get back to me). Criminality is higher, and victimazimation is higher because of the legacy left by centuries of historical oppression . A cycle like that is hard to break, and it's a factor that has to be considered along side present day prejudice.

Yes that was exactly what I was saying. I could have gone into detail, but I prefer to make bold statements that provoke emotional reactions and then watch how people respond. It's amusing, and it separates the wheat from the chaff.

I do believe black people commit crime at a higher rate than other races, but I do not believe this is simply because they're black. I believe there are many social, cultural, economic, and historical causes behind it.

I also believe that there is a vicious cycle at work here. Some black people commit crime which causes whites to become weary of blacks in general and treat them like criminals, denying black people jobs and opportunities which causes them to lash out at society and commit crime.

And if you'd just said that in the first place, I'd have had no problems at all with it.

As it is, it came across very much like trolling. You were trying to provoke emotional responses for your own amusement. I think you can separate the wheat from the chaff in a way that doesn't make you look like a troll, a bigot, or a jerk in the process.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

...White people have rioted before, and for far less justification....

pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.imagine if it had been a draw....

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Please explain to me how you are not requiring me and others in this thread to prove a negative. Given that you apparently think that black people commit more crimes than other races, the burden of proof is on you to show it.

I think black people commit more crime than other races based on the fact that black people are arrested at a larger proportion than other races. I simply see no reason not to accept the data at face value.

Quesi posted statistics and figures earlier in this topic. You seem to have missed them.

I found them irrelevant. While the data shows more whites found with guns, it does not demonstrate that fewer crimes are committed by blacks. So whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk. That doesn't disprove my point. It only demonstrates that whites are found with guns at a higher proportion than blacks during a stop and frisk.

You may choose to interpret the data to mean that whites are more likely to use a gun in the commission of a crime, or that whites are more likely to carry a gun in self defense. The data makes neither claim, so it's open to interpretation.

Neither does the data report how many of those found with guns had permits to carry them, undoubtedly some did. Were a greater percentage of those legally carried weapons found on blacks or whites? We don't know.

Unless you are seriously suggesting that this justifies him being severely beaten by police officers in the process of arresting him when he did not attack even one of them, this is irrelevant. The closest he came to physical resistance was pushing himself up off of the ground.

Officers claim that he repeatedly moved towards them despite their orders to stay down. Only at those moments did they resume their attempts to subdue him. At several points they stopped attacking, only to have King get up again, despite their orders, and make what they believed was an attempt to attack one of them.

Considering that this man had just led them on a high speed chase, and had a record of violent crime, they had no way of knowing whether or not he was armed and I think they were right in erring on the side of caution.

The fact that he was unable to attack any of them does not mean he didn't try, it simply means they were successful in preventing his attack.

Also, your 'sarcasm' is way out of line. I never said anything about him being framed for any of that, and I really don't appreciate your insinuations to the contrary. If that's not what you were trying to get across, then you should clarify it.

Not sure why you brought him up then. Rodney King is an example of a black man who was in fact a criminal, not someone who was falsely treated as a criminal simply for being black.

The officers were then tried in federal court for violation of King's civil rights, and two of them were found guilty. You also apparently ignored the probability that there would have been no trial and no real knowledge of it had it not been for the fact that the beating was videotaped by someone who was in the position to do so.

King was taken to the hospital with broken bones, the police made no attempt to cover up his wounds or the incident even before the tape came out. The tape probably helped him, but I don't think you can make the claim that there would have been no trial without it.

Yes, black people reacted badly to the acquittals, because that there was videotape evidence of Rodney King being severely beaten. He was struck 56 times with batons, Joe. Fifty-six. After being tased by one of the officers. He had broken bones as a result of that beating.

Is that racism or the result of resisting arrest? The other two black men in the car with him were tased 0 times and beaten 0 times. How many times would he have been tased if he had gotten out of his vehicle as ordered? How many times would he have been beaten if he had gotten down on the ground as ordered? How many extra hits did he buy himself when he grabbed his ass in a lewd sexual gesture towards a female officer which was mistaken as a reach for a weapon?

And then the LA court system acquitted the officers of the charge of using excessive force. I'm not justifying the riots because of that, but I can understand how people, who had severely suffered from institutional racism for more than two centuries, could draw the conclusion that the deck was stacked against them and react with fury.

I don't believe you can legitimately draw the conclusion that black people are inherently more likely to commit crimes just from arrest data. A person can be arrested but never charged with a crime; they can be acquitted of the charges if they are, or vindicated of them if they are wrongfully convicted.

pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

pay particular attention to the guy in the sweater vest...here is a gaggle of caucasians rioting because their football team won.I suppose these caucasians would riot if their football team lost.imagine if it had been a draw....

Yeah, these people are fucking stupid. They just want an excuse to riot, and not even a good or moral one. This is why I refuse to discuss soccer with my foreign friends, these shennanigans make a mockery of the whole sport.

"these people", clarify.

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.